CRLRC/2196/2011 of PATTAPU RAVI Vs THE STATE OF A.P. REP BY ITS P.P on 29 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREEPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2196 OF 2011

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by theorder dated 01.11.2011,in CA.No.108 of 2009 on the file of the Court of SpecialJudgefor Trial of Offences under the SCs and STs (POA)Act,1989-cum-VAdditional Sessions Judge, Nellore, as confirmed in[CC.No.607][ of][ 2006][ on][ the][ file]of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of[First][ Class,][ Nellore.]

Between:

PattapuRavi,S/o.Parandhamaiah,Agedabout43years,R/o.Mudivarthipalem Village, Indukurupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore.

AND

...Petitioner

The State of Andhra Pradesh. Represented by its Public Prosecutor, HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. G Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)The Court made the following Order:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVASCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2196 of 2011

ORDER;

ThisRevisionisarisingoutof judgmentdated01.11.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.108 of 2009 on the fileofSpecial Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and theSTs(PoA)Act,1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge,Nellore, whereinthelearned Judgehasdismissedtheappeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposedagainsttherevisionpetitioner/accusedfortheoffencepunishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC in thejudgment dated 15.05.2009 in C.C.No.607 of 2006 passedby the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of[First]Class, Nellore.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:[On]23.03.2006, PW2 invited her relatives and her kith and kinto accompany her family members Muthyalamma Jatharaat Thoorpu Kanupooru to pay their offerings in connectionwith their owe, that they engaged a mini lorry bearing23.03.2006, PW2 invited her relatives and her kith and kinto accompany her family members Muthyalamma Jatharaat Thoorpu Kanupooru to pay their offerings in connectionwith their owe, that they engaged a mini lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 456 for that purpose and the mini lorry[came]totheirvillageat midnighton22.03.2006,thattheirvillagers and relatives about more thanfifty in numberboarded the lorry, that himself and PW12, the cleaner andthe driver were in the Cabin of the lorry and the remainingpersons got into the body of the lorry and sat there,[that]on23.03.2006,thelorrystartedfromthevillage,theaccused/lorry driver drove the vehicle at a high speed[in][ a]rash and negligent manner and dashed a palmyrah treesituated on the left side road margin near Dakaya Mitta[at]a distance of 2 KMs from Kudithipalem village, resultedsustainedseverebleeding injuries andthat Bujjamma,Sujatha,Appani Ramanamma,AppaniSeetharavammaandAppaniRathnammadiedonthespot,thattheremaining injured wereshiftedto Nellore Hospitalthatlater the injured, Uyyala Millikarjuna and Sai ram,alsodied and that the accident occurred only due to the[rash]andnegligentdrivingof thedriver,PattapuRavi(theaccused herein). The Sub Inspector of Police, IndukurpetPoliceStationregisteredEx. PIasacaseinCrime No.44/2006 for the offences under Sections 304-A and[337]IPC.

3. Before thetrial Court, the prosecution examinedPW.l toPW.22 and marked Ex.Pl to Ex.P33. On behalf ofthe accused Exs.Dlto D9are marked, but not oralevidence was adduced.

4. By considering the material on record, the trial[Court]convicted the accused for the offence 304-A, 338 and[337]IPC and he is convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C[and]sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a periodof one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,500/- in[default,]to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three[(03)]months.

5. Aggrievedbythe impugnedorder,therevisionanappeal before the lowerpetitioner/accused preferredappellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirmingthe trial Court judgment.

6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filedby the petitioner.by the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner andthelearnedSpecialAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresenting the respondent-State.representing the respondent-State.

8. Now the point that arises for determination in thisrevisionis«whether thereis any flaw orillegalityorirregularity or impropriety in the findings recorded by thetrial Court as well appellate Court”.revisionis«whether thereis any flaw orillegalityorirregularity or impropriety in the findings recorded by thetrial Court as well appellate Court”.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thetrial Court as well as appellate Court failed to consider theuncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of prosecutionand convicted the accused and the appellate Court failed toconsider that there is no fault on the part of the accusedwhile driving the lorry.trial Court as well as appellate Court failed to consider theuncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of prosecutionand convicted the accused and the appellate Court failed toconsider that there is no fault on the part of the accusedwhile driving the lorry.

10. As against the same, learned Special Assistant PublicProsecutorsubmitsthatitisprovedthatthepetitioner/accused was the driver of the mini lorry bearingNo.AP 26 U 456 on the date of accident.It is also not indisputethatintheaccident,7 persons died and14Prosecutorsubmitsthatitisprovedthatthepetitioner/accused was the driver of the mini lorry bearingNo.AP 26 U 456 on the date of accident.It is also not indisputethatintheaccident,7 persons died and14

persons were injured.The evidenceof PW-8 and PW-20coupled with Exs.P2toP7 and PIO goes to show thatinquests were held over 7 persons died in the accident.Which clearly shows that the rash and negligence on[the]part of the driver of the lorry i.e., petitioner herein.Hefurther submits that the prosecution successfully provedtherashandnegligenceonthepartoftheaccusedresulting which the accident occurred and there is[direct]evidence PWs.l to 17.

11. PW-19, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that heinspectedthecrimevehicleandfoundthatthebrakesystem of lorry is in good working condition and there[is][ no]mechanicaldefectandthesamewasmentionedintheEx.P-9report.Hefurtherdeposedthathefoundthefollowing damage to the lorry:inspectedthecrimevehicleandfoundthatthebrakesystem of lorry is in good working condition and there[is][ no]mechanicaldefectandthesamewasmentionedintheEx.P-9report.Hefurtherdeposedthathefoundthefollowing damage to the lorry:

i)Front wind screen broken.

ii)Left side load body completely damaged.

iii)Rear end door damaged and

iv)Left cabin glass door broken.

12. It is clearly shows that the rash and negligence onthe part of the petitioner, while driving the vehicleandnothing left out by the trial Court as well appellate Courtinappreciating the evidence and there is aconcurrent findingon the fact by both Courts and this Courtcannot upset thefindings. negligence onthe part of the petitioner, while driving the vehicleandnothing left out by the trial Court as well appellate Courtinappreciating the evidence and there is aconcurrent findingon the fact by both Courts and this Courtcannot upset thefindings.

13. After hearing both sides, this Court closely perusedthe testimoniesof witnesses. PW-1deposed thateventhoughtheinmatesofthelorrywarnedthepetitioner/accused to drive the lorry slowly. But, who is ina drunken state, drove the lorry in a rash and negligentmanner. The testimonies of PWs-1to17 in one voicedeposed that the accident occurred because of the rashand negligent driving of the accused. It is also found fromthe record that the petitioner/accused, who consumedliquor at the outskirts of the village. Thereafter, drove thelorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed thepalmyrah tree by the side of the road.the testimoniesof witnesses. PW-1deposed thateventhoughtheinmatesofthelorrywarnedthepetitioner/accused to drive the lorry slowly. But, who is ina drunken state, drove the lorry in a rash and negligentmanner. The testimonies of PWs-1to17 in one voicedeposed that the accident occurred because of the rashand negligent driving of the accused. It is also found fromthe record that the petitioner/accused, who consumedliquor at the outskirts of the village. Thereafter, drove thelorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed thepalmyrah tree by the side of the road.

14. PW 15alsodeposedthatthepetitioner/accuseddrove the vehicle while he was in intoxicating condition.drove the vehicle while he was in intoxicating condition.

The evidence of PWs-1 to 17, which goes to show that[the]vehicle was being driven by the accused-driver at a[very]high speed in intoxicate condition.

15. More so, there was no traffic at that time and lengthof the road is also wide enough at the place wheretheaccidentoccurred, whichclearlyshowsthat thelorrydashed against the tree, which was by the side of the[road]margin and the body of the lorry was damaged. When[there]is much material and the same is appreciated by both[the]Courts below, there is no defense for the scope to[discard]the evidence.of the road is also wide enough at the place wheretheaccidentoccurred, whichclearlyshowsthat thelorrydashed against the tree, which was by the side of the[road]margin and the body of the lorry was damaged. When[there]is much material and the same is appreciated by both[the]Courts below, there is no defense for the scope to[discard]the evidence.

16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view[that]thereareconcurrentfindingofthefactthatthepetitioner/accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligentmanner.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of[the]opinion that the orders passed by both the courts belowareunambiguous and cannot be set aside.18.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

19. Miscellaneous petitions pendingif anyshall standclosed.Interimordersgrantedearlierifany,standvacated.vacated.

SD/- M RAMESH BABUDEPUTY REGISTRAR

CSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,1.TheIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class; Nellore,[SPSR][ Nellore]1.TheIV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class; Nellore,[SPSR][ Nellore]

Ttfe'^Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under The[SC’s][ and][ ST][ S (POA)][ Act,]1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge: Nellc^^ SPSRNellore District.One CC toSri. G Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC]roim1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge: Nellc^^ SPSRNellore District.One CC toSri. G Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC]roim

2.

3.4. Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.[at][ Amaravati][ [OUT]]5.TheSection Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P.[at][ Amaravathi]4.Two CC's to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.[at][ Amaravati][ [OUT]]5.TheSection Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P.[at][ Amaravathi]

4. Three CD Copies

6. SAMsree

i

HIGH COURT

DATED:29/12/2023

ORDERCRLRC.No.2196 of 2011

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

0